Honoured Attorney General.
The Bill of Rights, section 5, offers me the right to request the recall of a government official who has abused their powers. I exercise that right with regard to the Chief Justice, Grimalkin.
The reasons for this request are twofold:
- Illegal and disproportionate punishment of JAL by removing him from the Regional Assembly
- Incompetence and malpractice in his handling of the JAL trial, and issues surrounding it.
Grimalkin has issued the following judicial ruling with regard to John Ashcroft Land:
I accuse Grimalkin of abusing the authority of his office by this ruling.
The exact wording of his ruling here is important. JAL’s membership was not suspended, pending his appearance at the trial hearings. It was “stripped”. He was totally removed from the RA. This is an unconstitutional act for the following reason:
First: The Bill of Rights protects nations from “disproportionate” punishment.
I would ask the court (rather than the chief justice acting unilaterally) to rule whether removal of a nation from the RA is a proportionate punishment for refusal (please remember, after six months of cooperation) to participate in a trial.
Second, the Legal code is very clear and specific about the reasons why and how a RA member can be removed from the Regional Assembly:
JAL has, at present, been found guilty of no crime. Strangely, in our laws, participation in a trial is not mandatory, and refusal to participate is not a crime. Neither, oddly, is contempt of court. Now this may be an anomaly that the RA will wish to rectify, but as the law stands, JAL has not been found guilty by due process of any crime outlined in the Consitution and laws.
JAL is not guilty of this one either.
These are the only outlined reasons why a RA member may be “stripped” of their membership. Grimalkin acted illegally in stripping JAL of his RA membership.
I would also remind the Attorney General that this punishment was inflicted on JAL without any due process or hearing. He was not accused of contempt: he was simply punished for it. All citizens in TNP have a right to due process: (article 7)
Nothing in the Bill fo Rights or Constitution gives Grimalkin the right to impose punishment in this manner, and particularly punishment of this severity.
INCOMPETENCE AND MALPRACTICE IN HIS HANDLNG OF THE JAL TRIAL.
A casual perusal of the end of the first JAL trial, as well as a glance at IRC logs around that time, shows that Grimalkin’s handling of the end of the second JAL hearing was incompetent: he gave the prosecution a deadline that he then failed to honour, he issued a verdict, then went back on the verdict (in what is now known as the infamous “clockgate” incident).
However, incompetence alone may not be a reason for prosecution. In TNP (and indeed in the JAL trial) we have had more than our fair share of incompetents, and the court may argue that one more makes no difference.
But I also accuse Grimalkin of malpractice and conduct unbecoming to his office in that on 15th March he repeatedly urged me to commit contempt of court – in fact, he goaded me into it with the clear desire that he might have an excuse to punish me for contempt of court, as he had already threatened:
It is reasonable that a Chief Justice administer our laws. It is not reasonable that they incite a member of the Regional Assembly to break those laws so that they can be punished.
In the light of subsequent events, I am glad that I responded to his goading with humour. Otherwise my punishment too might have been equally severe to that inflicted on JAL.
Honoured Attorney General, TNP rightly has a fear of Rogue Delegates. But it is not only delegates who can act in a rogue manner and abuse their powers. we grant sweeping authority to the Chief Justice. We have a right to expect that in their conduct the holder of that office is impartial, competent and rightly administers our laws. Grimalkin fails on every count, and I call for his recall.
I also ask the court to issue a temportary order restoring JAL's RA membership until the legality of his "stripping" can be determined. We all know how slowly TNP law can work.
The Bill of Rights, section 5, offers me the right to request the recall of a government official who has abused their powers. I exercise that right with regard to the Chief Justice, Grimalkin.
The reasons for this request are twofold:
- Illegal and disproportionate punishment of JAL by removing him from the Regional Assembly
- Incompetence and malpractice in his handling of the JAL trial, and issues surrounding it.
Grimalkin has issued the following judicial ruling with regard to John Ashcroft Land:
I accuse Grimalkin of abusing the authority of his office by this ruling.
The exact wording of his ruling here is important. JAL’s membership was not suspended, pending his appearance at the trial hearings. It was “stripped”. He was totally removed from the RA. This is an unconstitutional act for the following reason:
First: The Bill of Rights protects nations from “disproportionate” punishment.
I would ask the court (rather than the chief justice acting unilaterally) to rule whether removal of a nation from the RA is a proportionate punishment for refusal (please remember, after six months of cooperation) to participate in a trial.
Second, the Legal code is very clear and specific about the reasons why and how a RA member can be removed from the Regional Assembly:
JAL has, at present, been found guilty of no crime. Strangely, in our laws, participation in a trial is not mandatory, and refusal to participate is not a crime. Neither, oddly, is contempt of court. Now this may be an anomaly that the RA will wish to rectify, but as the law stands, JAL has not been found guilty by due process of any crime outlined in the Consitution and laws.
JAL is not guilty of this one either.
These are the only outlined reasons why a RA member may be “stripped” of their membership. Grimalkin acted illegally in stripping JAL of his RA membership.
I would also remind the Attorney General that this punishment was inflicted on JAL without any due process or hearing. He was not accused of contempt: he was simply punished for it. All citizens in TNP have a right to due process: (article 7)
Nothing in the Bill fo Rights or Constitution gives Grimalkin the right to impose punishment in this manner, and particularly punishment of this severity.
INCOMPETENCE AND MALPRACTICE IN HIS HANDLNG OF THE JAL TRIAL.
A casual perusal of the end of the first JAL trial, as well as a glance at IRC logs around that time, shows that Grimalkin’s handling of the end of the second JAL hearing was incompetent: he gave the prosecution a deadline that he then failed to honour, he issued a verdict, then went back on the verdict (in what is now known as the infamous “clockgate” incident).
However, incompetence alone may not be a reason for prosecution. In TNP (and indeed in the JAL trial) we have had more than our fair share of incompetents, and the court may argue that one more makes no difference.
But I also accuse Grimalkin of malpractice and conduct unbecoming to his office in that on 15th March he repeatedly urged me to commit contempt of court – in fact, he goaded me into it with the clear desire that he might have an excuse to punish me for contempt of court, as he had already threatened:
It is reasonable that a Chief Justice administer our laws. It is not reasonable that they incite a member of the Regional Assembly to break those laws so that they can be punished.
In the light of subsequent events, I am glad that I responded to his goading with humour. Otherwise my punishment too might have been equally severe to that inflicted on JAL.
Honoured Attorney General, TNP rightly has a fear of Rogue Delegates. But it is not only delegates who can act in a rogue manner and abuse their powers. we grant sweeping authority to the Chief Justice. We have a right to expect that in their conduct the holder of that office is impartial, competent and rightly administers our laws. Grimalkin fails on every count, and I call for his recall.
I also ask the court to issue a temportary order restoring JAL's RA membership until the legality of his "stripping" can be determined. We all know how slowly TNP law can work.
